P R O Je C T Op T Io N S

04 PROJECT OPTIONS Section 4 PROJECT OPTIONS SECTION 4 : PROJECT OPTIONS 4.1 INTRODUCTION Various alignment options were identified and evaluated in the process of selecting the preferred, optimum alignment for the Project. The options varied according to the physical characteristic, socio-economic constraints and transport network design requirements of each alignment options. In addition to the alignment options, two options for railway gauge were also considered, namely standard gauge and meter gauge. 4.2 PLANNING & DESIGN BASIS During the Feasibility Study for the ECRL Phase 2, a set of planning guidelines were used to develop the design concept for the ECRL Phase 2 corridor and the alignment (Table 4-1). Table 4-1 : Planning Guidelines for ECRL Phase 2 Aspect Description Strategic position Enhancing existing railway stations close to town centers to provide connectivity for freight transport Future development To avoid encroaching on areas committed for future development Connectivity Provide connectivity to: Major urban centers Industrial clusters Sea ports and internal container depot Tourism zones Integrated transport terminals Environment Minimize encroaching to Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) such as swamp forest, river corridors, forest reserves, ecological linkages and wildlife habitats wherever possible Additionally, a set of criteria will also be used to evaluate alignment options and to determine the preferred alignment ( Table 4-2). Section 5 Project Description 4-1 Table 4-2 : Alignment Criteria for ECRL Phase 2 Aspect Objective Criteria Policy Compliance to, Connect Key Development Areas Considerations National Physical Plan identified in the structure and local plans and State Structure Integration with other transport system Plans (e.g freight accessibility to railway lin e, Compliance with the intercity bus routes) statutory local plans Conform with local plan alignme nt Promote regional wherever possible development Good accessibility to state capital and town centres (5-8km from town centre) Economic & Maximize economic Achieve acceptable Financial Internal Financial and financial returns Rates of Return Achieve acceptable Economic Internal Rates of Return Engineering Minimize construction Avoid coastal zone (5km from coastline) cost of the proposed and flood prone areas alignment Compliance with speed & geomet rical Optimize the use of requirements existing infrastructure Prefer flat land with less than 1% gradient Minimize operation & wherever possible maintenance cost Suitable geology & bedrock Environment Minimize intrusion Avoid: into environmentally ESA Rank 1 sensitive areas (ESA) Storm surge areas (Area affected by climate change) Wildlife habitat and Ecological linkages Coastal River corridors Coastal Swamp forests Minimize land Avoid: Social acquisition cost High density built up areas Mitigate objections Committed development areas from local National security installations stakeholders Small holding agricultural land Promote sustainable Avoid local community severance public transport Avoid culturally sensitive l and and Optimize end to end historical sites such as cemetery, places of journey time worship etc Provide inc reased Prefer: connectivity between Route alignment to traverse state land East Coast states and and large land holdings wherever the West Coast possible Connect all existing railway lines / stations Scenic route (promote experiential tourism) 4-2 Section 4 Project Options 4.2.1 Station Planning Criteria ECRL stations can serve as passenger, mixed passenger and freight stations, or as freight-only stations. The design planning criteria principles considered when determining the station locations in the Feasibility Study are as follows: • Connecting all state capitals as well as major urban centers that have sufficient population catchment for intercity transit or commuter stations • Easy accessibility to a wide segment of the population by a central location within urban limits • Availability of land for development of station and its ancillary uses • Adjacent to bus routes and KTMB transit routes for interchanges • Avoidance or minimized severance of communities The stations in Kelantan will be located as close to the coast as possible, without intruding on the coastline and its potential for tourism and other industries (at least 5 km away from the coastline). These considerations will allow easy access from the stations to towns, tourism hotspots and industrial zones yet still avoid the coastal zone. 4.3 NO PROJECT OPTION The No Project would have resulted in foregoing the benefits of the east-west railway link between the East Coast and the West Coasts of Peninsular Malaysia as envisaged and planned in the various National Physical Plans, State Structure Plans, ECER Master Plan, Land Transport Master Plan and the Feasibility Study. 4.4 ALIGNMENT OPTIONS 4.4.1 Kelantan Options Alignment option study was carried out to assess route options. For the Kelantan extension, four proposed routes were studied for to determine the best alignment (Chart 4-1). The options were: Option A & D : Generally in the same northwest direction from Kota Bharu Station to Pengkalan Kubor Station with some differences in curvature of the alignments. Option B : Also starts from Kota Bharu but will turn northeast at Wakaf Bharu to join the existing KTM line before heading northwest again and ending at Pengkalan Kubor. Section 5 Project Options 4-3 Option C : Commences from Jelawat station and travels closer to the coast, passing Kota Bharu and Pengkalan Chepa and then continuing northwest before ending at Pengkalan Kubor. Chart 4-1 : Kelantan Route Options Source: Presentation to EXCO Kelantan, 2017 The criteria used in deriving these options are construction costs, alignment geometry, social impact, constructability, station location and land costs. The evaluation of options is shown in Table 4-3. Table 4-3: Kelantan Alignment Options Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Weightage % Option A Option B Option C Option D Alignment Description Construction Costs 15 10.5 10.5 12 15 Alignment Geometry 15 15 15 15 15 Social and 20 9 1.5 9 9.5 Environmental Impact Constructability 20 14 6 10 12 Station Location 25 17 18 17 16 Land Costs 5 3.5 3.5 4 5 Total Score 100 69 54.5 67 72.5 From this study, Option D was preferable as it had the lowest construction and land costs (shorter and more straightforward alignment) and the least social impacts (shorter alignment passing through less communities). 4-4 Section 4 Project Options 4.4.2 Selangor Options Three proposed routes were studied for freight relief and connectivity ( Chart 4-2). The options were: Option 1 : Gombak – Batu Caves – Sg Buloh – SkyPark – Subang Jaya – Port Klang Option 2 : Gombak – Bandar Malaysia – Subang Jaya – Port Klang Option 3 : Gombak – Serendah – Port Klang The criteria used in deriving these three options are: • To further enhance connectivity of the ECRL Phase 1 by providing a link to Port Klang • To provide freight relief to the existing KTMB North-South Line by providing an alternative route for freight trains. • Should utilize road and other government reserves so as to minimize private land take Chart 4-2 : Selangor Route Options Source: Feasibility Study of The East Coast Rail Link Project Extension Line (Gombak To Port Klang), May 2017 An appraisal of the three main options indicates that Option 3 is likely to have the most significant benefits while at the same time satisfying the project requirements. Comparison of the alignment options are summarized in Table 4-4. Section 5 Project Options 4-5 Although Option 2 has the highest ridership catchment, it is not recommended due to its poor alignment geometry, social impact, potential construction issues from sharing KTMB corridor as well as risks of having a long tunnel in Kuala Lumpur. The long stretch of tunnel under the city centre other than being expensive is unsuitable for the transfer of freight and poses safety issues / concerns in an event of a disaster such as tunnel fire or train fire. Option 3 has the better alignment geometry, allowing for higher operating speed and lower maintenance costs. Option 3 also has the least social impact as it passes through more agriculture areas. Constructability is not a major issue with Option 3, compared with the other options which require construction adjacent a live railway line and also construction of a tunnel under the Kuala Lumpur city. Option 3 with moderate land acquisition is much preferred compared to Option 2 for less social issues and shorter acquisition time. The new rail corridor along Option 3 will open up new opportunities for further development & growth along the corridor. Option 3 also does not duplicate existing railway corridors as it does for Option 1 (28km) and Option 2 (33km). In terms of construction cost, Options 1 and 3 have been determined to be the cheapest. As Option 3 best meets the requirements for freight relief, the investment can be easily paid up as it will provide a competitive option for the transport of goods. Table 4-4: Selangor Alignment Options Evaluation Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Criteria Journey time Length = 64 km Length = 67 km Length = 83 km (Shortest route) (Longest route) Alignment Alignment passes Alignment passes Alignment with best Geometry through built-up areas through built-up geometry with many areas with many substandard curves substandard curves Freight Links Port Klang with Long stretch of Links Port

Load more